Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

I am really trying to understand this concept...

Posted on: May 15, 2007 - 4:32am

Incendiary

Posts: 9

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

I am really trying to understand this concept...

I've spent the past few hours tonight wandering around this website, considering thoughtfully what I've read. I'm not sure if pointing out propaganda tactics and inconsistences is against this forum's rules, but if it is, I suppose this site isn't as much an advocate of free thought as it claims to be.

Actually, that brings me to my first point. "Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism." What exactly does this catch-phrase mean? Throughout the history of human existence, whatever has been majority belief has been considered a societal norm, and whatever has been the minority has been considered deviant behavior (obviously - deviance from the societal norm, or standard, for those of you not familiar with basic, first-year, intro sociology.) The only logical claim I have found for believing that theism has any negative consequences, and therefore, has any reason to be considered an actual disorder whatsoever (because everything else - and i mean everything else - naturally occurs regardless in society, including genocide/racial/cultural discrimination (Hitler)) is that of "theism makes it so people don't value life as much, because they've something to look forward to in the after life." Well, actually, history teaches us a much different lesson. You're probably sitting in a home in America - which was essentially a theocracy for a good few hundred years, even before it was considered America. If you didn't worship god, didn't attend church in the small towns, you were outcast, possible lynched. You might see this as bad. Actually, people were rather industrious because many of the Christians sects back then saw working hard and accomplishing much as a way to gain Gods favor. You can thank Christians for building the foundation of this nation. I'm not saying Christianity is like this anymore, of course...it has twisted and changed in a variety of ways to serve its purposes in this era. But what I am saying is that what you see as a plague, as a hazard to free thought, has brought a lot of good to our world as it stands today - I'm trying to make a point that you cannot generalize, and that there is both good and bad to everything. And the fact is, all I see are generalizations on this site...baseless generalizations at that, generalizations without research or education behind them, generalizations, to quote Assemblage, that are not dissimilar from "a blind hammer that destroys what it can't see."

Now, let me address the issue of theism as a mental disorder. I hardly think you could define it as such safely. Theism has no quantitatively documentable consequences that would make it anything more than neurosis - it doesn't affect the vast majority of people in a negative way, and on the contrary, it benefits millions-billions of people to have faith in something. It doesn't cause problems in the day to day lives of people, on the contrary, it often times gives them a reason to go about their day to day lives. I see on this section of the forum, the athiests respond in a rather civil manner. However, I see that you've got plenty of other sections dedicated to figuring out ways to convert others to your "faith" in nothing, and even to "Utopia" which apparently can be achieved by the eradication of the so-called mental disorder theism.

So, are any of you aware of the Golden Age of Christianity? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if I've ever seen one - when every man believes in god and follows his law, a golden age will follow...a utopia, if you will. Obviously if everyone was the same, we'd have a utopia. Every single Utopian idea I have ever come across involved everyone being the same, believing the same thing. Yours is no different.

You talk of independent thought, free thinking. But you are self-contradicting and inconsistent in this belief by advocating the destruction of theism. Once again, I might note - in this section of the forum, none of you are willing to say you don't want theists around, you want to "live and let live." However, you are a supporting a site that quite obviously does not believe or support this. I see a t-shirt on the left hand side, "Believe in god? We can fix that." Did you ever think they don't want it fixed? You are no better than the missionaries you likely want to abolish. "Jesus is for suckers." Who gives you the right to say such a thing? Do you honestly believe that every man who believes in Jesus is a sucker? Because I can with the utmost certainty say there are plenty out there who have achieved more than ANY of you ever will in life.

Give me a break. This is one obvious reason why rampant athiesm would be bad for society. You want fair treament by theists, and at the same time you ridicule their religions. You can't even follow the most simple of moral laws: Do to others what you would want done to you.

And before you go jumping on me, I'm quite aware I've generalized plenty in this essay. Just remember I'm not targeting all of you - I'm sure some of you don't actually want to eradicate theism. But from the looks of the other forum sections, there's plenty of you that do. Someday you'll realize that free thought is about allowing people to choose. China is suppressing and harming Tibetans because their religion conflicts with communist ideology - keep on supporting the kind of attitude this site has, and you're no better than they.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else. You've got no right to tear them down unless they tear you down first. I've had my fair share of arguments with Christians in the past, but I never once told them they shouldn't believe in God. That's their choice, not yours. If you want indepedent thought, stop telling people what to believe.

Hello there. I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but these are my beliefs. This site and other atheists call religion a delusion of the mind for a simple reason. All religion is based on faith. Faith is essentially believing without proof or evidence. This has many negative consequences for our society [huge discussion here]. A delusion is a false belief or opinion, a fixed belief that does not waiver even in view of facts. If this is not the exact definition of theism I do not know what is?

Atheists have proven time and time again why the probability of a god is microscopic, yet theists persist. Theists have no proof of their beliefs (faith) and when confronted with scientific evidence and logic, they ignore it. Thus the delusion comes in. They are deluding their reasoning minds of the reality of the world. It is not meant to sound disrespectful but a wake up call. Religion is nothing special and should not be afforded any more respect than talking about a football game or criticizing the behavior of a company's CEO.

I do agree to an extent that people should believe what they want, as long as it does not affect others. However this is not the case. For example, many many Christians condemn and disparage homosexuals, women, and other religions. Religion in every society in every geographic area has led to violence and harm. On top of the fact that religion pervasively has negative effects - what is wrong with a fellow human wanting another to trulyunderstand the world around them, for the betterment of others and society as a whole? Is it not true that knowing the real truth of the universe is the best position to be in?

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

No proof for the nonexistence of god exists. Come up with one, I might consider joining your cause.

As for proof of the existence of god being microscopic, refer to the above. I am not aware of anyone successfully managing to prove the probability of his/her/it/their existence being microscopic. Even so, probability is probability, and just because the probability of something is miniscule does not make it more right to believe the higher probability...after all, no one would play the lottery if that were the case. After all, if you walk against a wall for a few hundred million years, your atoms will line up correctly and you'll walk right through it, or so quantum theorists say.

You can go round and round about the existence of god all day with me, you still can't prove the nonexistence, and nothing I said even claimed that I believe in god. Athiesm and Theism are two theories, and that's all they are, theories.

As for oppression due to religion, heck, I don't appreciate that either. But what I don't appreciate more is the lumping of all religions into one category, when anyone who actually studies the topics knows better than to do so.

As for the issue of faith and not having proof, you're talking about yourself and every other athiest and thiest in the world there, buddy. We're all in the same boat together, you just refuse to accept the fact you can't prove the nonexistence of god. You'd rather concern yourself with asking theists about it - i guess you've never met a philosophy student who knows you've got as much proof as a theist.

Edit: While this is no longer short and to the point, there is something really significant I need to address here. You're talking about the "truth of the universe" when you have no /idea/ what that is! You never will, no one alive knows, and no one ever will, barring some major revelations-like event! It's every person's right to pursue their own version of that truth, because that's all we /can/ do as humans. You're acting as blind as a Christian fanatic in assuming you are 100% correct on the truth of life, the universe and everything.

2) Cogntive coherency of the concept. If the ontology you created (by the way, if you suceed in that positive ontology, mention me when you get your nobel prize) works, you still have to pass a minefield to ensure that it doesn't directly contradict it's own attributes. And no. I am not referring to the "problem of evil and suffering". I am referring to something deeper. Detailed here:

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

You make the mistake of suggesting that you must disprove god. This is not the case. When there is a positive assertion about a concept or idea the burden of proof rests with that person.

It would be fallacious and illogical to require, for example, that you must disprove that there is a microscopic teapot orbiting Mercury that is also invisible. You would find it absolutely ridiculous if I sat here and said, prove it isnt so! Same goes for magic unicorns and leprechauns. God is not special and is subject to this. Theists are making a positive claim which requires proof.

This idea that I cannot disprove the existence of god repeats itself in your post. As I said above, you also cannot disprove that there are leprechauns and that there are flying spaghetti monsters. Does this lack of disproof lend the ideas any credence? Absolutely not. Theories must be proven, not disproven.

No Theist has ever offered any real evidence (faith and the Bible is not evidence) to PROVE any superhuman invisible person up in the sky - sorry for the silliness but it is somewhat justified.

In terms of lumping and generalizing above, I was trying to respond generally and quickly, as you know these are huge topics that are impossible to cover in short post.

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

I love how athiests complain about bible-bashers pointing to their beloved books, while they themselves point to information written by others to answer questions. Real independent thinking there, my friends.

You say the burden of proof lies with me - the both of you do, in a way. I say, I need not show proof of anything. And while it is stereotypical and common, I say that I feel it in the air I breath, the ground I walk on, the love I share with others.

It is a personal belief, like any other. No manner of effort will ever crumble humanity's wonder of the afterlife or of a divine force. And while you claim you somehow know truth, you do not really, and you are just as uncertain as any self-reflecting theist should be. And if you aren't uncertain, that is foolhardy.

"He who thinks he knows, does not know. He who knows he does not know, knows."

I would note that it is interesting, if god is indeed nonexistent as you assert with such certainty, that the idea ever came up in the minds of man in the first place. I have come to a place in theism that does not adhere to any dogmatic system, and I've found real serenity within that. If you ever tried to forcefully strip that from me in the name of some ethnocentric manhunt, I'd fight to the grave for it.

It is a personal belief, like any other. No manner of effort will ever crumble humanity's wonder of the afterlife or of a divine force. And while you claim you somehow know truth, you do not really, and you are just as uncertain as any self-reflecting theist should be. And if you aren't uncertain, that is foolhardy

This is what the loser in the debate usually says...

Are you going to provide a positive ontology or not. If you cannot provide a positive ontology, then we cannot take you seriously. Plain and simple. Imagine I asked you to prove the existence of a purple snarfwidget. Before even trying to give evidence for said purple snarfwidget, you would undoubtably ask "What the fuck is a purple snarfwidget". And it would probably be easier to provide a positive ontology in that case anyway.

So are you going to give as positive ontology, or not? Don't you know that for ceturies negative theologians have conceded that saying "God exists" is mutually contradictory? Should you fail in this endeavor, like thousands of predecessors who have foolishly taken up this challenge, lose no heart. You are not the first, and definitely wont be the last.

And by the way, regarding "using the words of other people" did you notice my second link? I wrote that. Not someone else.And I am quite certain my calculations are correct, and the physics behind is accurate. I have seen it in action myself.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Well im done with this post. Clearly he has no evidence based on his refutation of the basics of logic and his resorting to ad hominem and personal anecdotes

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Did notice deluded, didn't understand a thing. You might want to consider writing a version for the lay man - of course, as with anything advanced as that, 99.9%+ of the population is never going to understand what you had to say. That's just the way it goes. I can't disagree with it because I don't understand anything other than some amount of quantum theory.

I think it's funny you called me a loser, actually - I never once said atheism was wrong, and i surely wasn't engaging in a debate. I wasn't trying to argue for theism either, just for a person's right to believe what they wish as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Of course, the thought police don't exist yet, so I guess I don't really have to worry about it

I might add, I'll probably live longer than you, however. One benefit of meditating/being religious.

Your referenced links are amazing. What sort of training have you had in physics and such? My biochemistry and evo bio background limited me to elementary physics and truly elementary quantum physics. ;/

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

Incendiary you better hope that my god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real. I had a vision, he came to me, and told me that all non-FSM believers would be pummeled to death by meatballs in 5 years. It's Faith!

Somebody called you a loser? I must have missed that. You also move from one logic fallacy to another. Begging the question, ad hominem, moralistic fallacy and irrelevant appeal (appeal to sympathy). Oh and the red herring. Good one on the thought police.

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

It's interesting you mention that. See, I'm not a physicist. I'm a biologist, like you. I study cellular biology. But I was so fascinated by quantum physics, I wanted to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos. I could not decide between the two. So I chose...both. I took up quantum physics as a side science. Not my profession choice, but more as a hobby. I only use it occasionally in biology, for instance when looking at the voltage-gated ion channels in the brain, they are governed by quantum electrodynamics.

The first link was written by todangst. He is a remarkable polymath. A philosopher, physcologist and logician. Probably one of the best debaters on the site, and surely the best atheologian I have ever encountered.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

I might add, I'll probably live longer than you, however. One benefit of meditating/being religious.

I almost died laughing. Seriously. You almost had your shot at living longer than me. LOL. Look, which country do you live in? If you live in the US, then I am quite willing to bet that I will live much longer than you. Because where I live, the life expectancy is significatly higher than in the US.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

wow, very cool. Cosmology and quantum physics has always interested me, but I likely would not be good enough at it to make a career out of it.

It must have been todangst, or perhaps yours? But there was apicture of Feynman at one of the articles. It amuses me to think of his intersection with biology when he asked for a "map of a cat". What a great mind!

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

In that case, my apologies. I don't believe that theism per se harms anyone, contrary to the general feeling on this site. However, I look at monotheism in particular and see a doctrine ravaged by blood and hatred, exclusivism and snobbery, and especially Islam.

And I guess I was paying more attention to the fight between you two about "proving God". I assumed there was a debate heating up. So I jumped in. If I was wrong, I extend my apologies again,

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

I don't necessarily adhere to any one dogmatic belief system. I agree entirely with your feelings on monotheism, and generally speaking, I've probably had just as many arguments with their fanatics as you have. Believe me. It gets old, and after awhile, I just gave up arguing with them.

Unlike a monotheist, I don't point to a book, because I don't have one. I point to personal experiences I likely cannot repeat with high enough consistency to win the Amazing Randi challenge. I would give examples, but they'd all be laughable to most of you - but then again, these experiences don't necessarily prove the existence of god, but rather, the possibility of mind over matter, or simply quantum mechanics, probability manipulation, or literal self-induced hallucination.

As for the whole proving god thing, I don't usually concern myself with it too much. I just know that no one really knows a damn thing deep down, we're all just speculating on the matter. And I mean, you can talk about positive ontologies all you want...it's still a big mystery, i think anyone can honestly admit that to themselves without harming their perspective. Then again, maybe not - I'm definitely not asking you to.

I thank you for the discussion nonetheless. I'm all for getting religion out of government. Just don't take it away from the people, unless of course they don't have enough faith to hold on - some of them really do need it.

I've only been on a short time but many of the posters seem very angry as evidenced in the name calling, belittling and contempt show to other human beings (some examples in this thread). BTW - I'm not saying I'm above this behavior, I'm not, but for me it indicates that I'm angry about something.

You're right to a degree, it wasn't technically Christian, it was a bunch of religious sects derived from judaism, just like modern christianity and islam both are. The first colonists left Britain to escape persecution for their religious beliefs.

Now, I hate to say it, but you are holding a delusion in believing the foundation of this country wasn't built by Christians. It most assuredly was, and I think it is hilarious you are denying historical evidence.

I never once said this is a Christian nation in the modern day, so you're putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it. I've come to find that hardly anyone who has replied to this post actually read the entire first posting of mine, or even considered it, or even attempted to argue against any of the points of made - Which i believe means none of you deny that you are abusing propaganda techniques to get followers for your little cult.

Additionally, I haven't made life stressful for a single athiest that I know of. I don't run around telling people to believe in god, I support stem cell research, I believe in marijuana legalization, I don't persecute others for their beliefs (meaning, I don't have a problem with homosexuality, any religion, or even athiests), and I sure as hell don't strap bombs to my chest to blow other people up, or start wars to spread my beliefs.

But you sure are quick to lump me into the same category as a fanatic christian or islamic when you have no objective facts that would lead you to believe that. From what I can tell, athiesm is turning into the same thing as a fanatic, insane religious cult. The only saving grace is the fact I know some of the guys who replied on here don't jump to conclusions so quickly, and actually have a degree of intelligence I respect.

I'm angry about the fact you degrade and belittle other religions because you feel they are illogical, when you have no way of proving that. While a positive ontology may not have been developed, that is besides the point. A person can believe whatever the heck they want - and while FSM may not exactly be a millenia old god, you can believe in FSM if you like, I won't stop you.

I'm angry that so many athiests on this site appear to believe only their perspective is correct and that not a single other perspective could be correct. I have not once denied the possibility of atheism being correct, you might note - I am respecting your ability to believe what you will. But I'm reading post after post after post saying that religion cannot possibly be correct. Note the fact not everything in existence can be explained by science, and it never will be. God might just be everything - not omniscient, not omnipotent, not some sort of invisible superhuman in the sky, just /everything/.

I'm angry that so many athiests appear to believe that they are somehow leading people to truth when they've got no more truth on the afterlife and divine beings than the next person.

What makes me angry the most is this lumping of all theism into a single category, as though it was the bane of all existence and never brought any good to this world. As I said in my first post, you wouldn't have your beloved America as it stands today, and likely, you yourself wouldn't exist without Judaism/Christianity in some form.

Everything in life has good and bad qualities. I think it's pretty obvious that the guy saying Christianity wasn't the foundation of this nation has proven not every athiest is a good person. Denial of factual evidence...what does that remind me of?

Something I realized today when I woke up is that your movement will have as many ignorant conformists as any religious movement has in the past. You will have as many blind followers as the next movement. You aren't succeeding in spreading truth, you're gathering a few intelligent independent thinkers, and bunch of people who are ignorant of the truth, moreso than yourselves and myself because they'll spew forth anything you tell them to.

I'm angry about the fact you degrade and belittle other religions because you feel they are illogical, when you have no way of proving that. While a positive ontology may not have been developed, that is besides the point. A person can believe whatever the heck they want - and while FSM may not exactly be a millenia old god, you can believe in FSM if you like, I won't stop you.

I will repeat what has been said above:The burden of proof lays on the claimant. If someone says "God exists and wants you to do X, Y, and Z" you ask them to prove it. Or are we supposed to go around assuming everything everyone says is true until shown otherwise? To do so would be madness.

People can believe whatever they like, that doesn't mean I can't ask them to prove it and point out the lack of veracity in their statements.

Proof of illogic of some theists:

Claim 1: God exists and is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Claim 2: God created the universe, including man.

Claim 3: God is not responsible for evil in the world, man is.

The problem: If god is all knowing, then he knows the exact consequences of his actions (which are whatever he chooses them to be since he is all-powerful), so god must be completely responsible for the state of creation if the first two claims are true.

There, an illogical claim, proven to be so. People who claim those three things are true are being illogical. You needn't be so angry.

(I don't think Claim 2 need be true for god to completely responsible. If one is all powerful, then reality can be nothing less than a perfect expression of one's desires.)

Quote:

I'm angry that so many athiests on this site appear to believe only their perspective is correct and that not a single other perspective could be correct. I have not once denied the possibility of atheism being correct, you might note - I am respecting your ability to believe what you will. But I'm reading post after post after post saying that religion cannot possibly be correct. Note the fact not everything in existence can be explained by science, and it never will be. God might just be everything - not omniscient, not omnipotent, not some sort of invisible superhuman in the sky, just /everything/.

And what does that get us? It's like deism (sp?). If god made the universe and walked away never to be heard of again (which would make sense if he/she/it were truly omniscient) what would it matter to us? We couldn't interact with god and god wouldn't interact with us.

I have slight pantheistic leanings myself. Atheists primarily reject the notion that a god intervenes in the universe.

Quote:

I'm angry that so many athiests appear to believe that they are somehow leading people to truth when they've got no more truth on the afterlife and divine beings than the next person.

Again, the burden of proof lies on the claimant. If you have real evidence, I'm sure most atheists on this site would believe you.

Atheism is a fall back position. If you have no proof for pixies living in your backyard, should you leave food for them and spend time and energy building pixie houses for them to live in? Or would you assume that no pixies live there and behave as if there are no pixies in your backyard? What if someone claimed that pixies live in your backyard? Should you assume they are right and start work on the houses and feeders or do you ask for proof? Would asking for proof be rude and insulting to their religious beliefs?

Quote:

What makes me angry the most is this lumping of all theism into a single category, as though it was the bane of all existence and never brought any good to this world. As I said in my first post, you wouldn't have your beloved America as it stands today, and likely, you yourself wouldn't exist without Judaism/Christianity in some form.

Excuse me? Are you going to claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments?

America was founded as a secular country because the founders had seen what happened when your government and religion were too tightly bound. (And don't bring up "In God We Trust" because that was added during the McCarthy Era, to scare commies or something like that.)

Also, I think you are making an is/ought mistake in your last sentence.

Quote:

I think it's pretty obvious that the guy saying Christianity wasn't the foundation of this nation has proven not every athiest is a good person. Denial of factual evidence...what does that remind me of?

Which post are you referring to here?

Quote:

Something I realized today when I woke up is that your movement will have as many ignorant conformists as any religious movement has in the past. You will have as many blind followers as the next movement. You aren't succeeding in spreading truth, you're gathering a few intelligent independent thinkers, and bunch of people who are ignorant of the truth, moreso than yourselves and myself because they'll spew forth anything you tell them to.

Every movement has ignorant conformists. The difference is that atheists don't ask others to blindly conform. They are asking people to question and think.

And in the OP, you claimed that atheists don't follow the "do unto others" rule? If I went around making outrageous claims, I'd perfectly expect people to question them and to ask for proof. I'd rather someone respect me as a human being enough to do that, than to just humor me.

Also, take a look at your last sentence. "As long as they aren't harming anyone." As soon as people stop killing, hurting, and oppressing each other for religious reasons, then fine, I'll have no problem with it.

I've only been on a short time but many of the posters seem very angry as evidenced in the name calling, belittling and contempt show to other human beings (some examples in this thread). BTW - I'm not saying I'm above this behavior, I'm not, but for me it indicates that I'm angry about something.

What are you angry about?

Just curious.

Everytime I see name calling from either side(even though I myself am guilty at times), I cringe a bit. I don't believe that ad hominem has any place in a rational discussion of ideas.

However, you're right, we do get angry.

I get angry.

Every atheists and every theist can and probably will get angry while debating the issue of a deity.

First of all, I think that for the most part the idea of a 'god' and your stance on said deity is an intensely personal one. One that people hold dearly and have probably spent alot of time thinking about. When these ideas are called into question, people get heated, and are put on the defensive.

Secondly, and I think I can speak for the majority of the atheists around here when I say this - we answer the same 15-20 questions over and over and over and over. Seriously.

The arguments for god pretty much all amount to one fallacy or another and have a very basic structure to them. It gets frustrating to repeat the same scrap of knowledge 20 times a day to people who are so unwavering in their beliefs that whatever you say will most likely have no effect anyway.

I honestly have a word document of the most common refutations I use when talking to theists, and I find myself doing a lot of copying and pasting, sadly.